Simulis, L.L.C. v. General Electric Captial Corporation, 392 S.W.3d 729

Simulis, L.L.C. appealed after remand from a prior Tex. App. 14th Dist. decision reversing a summary judgment on quantum meruit and remanding for further proceedings.
On remand, Simulis amended to assert numerous new counterclaims (unjust enrichment, fiduciary duties, fraud, misrepresentation, trade secrets, TLA, unfair competition) and damages up to $100 million.
GE filed special exceptions asserting res judicata, collateral estoppel, and law of the case, plus pleading deficiencies.
The trial court granted GE’s special exceptions and ordered Simulis to replead to cure deficiencies, guiding toward a quantum meruit claim only.
Simulis filed a Fourth Amended Counterclaim dropping unjust enrichment and retrying multiple claims; GE then moved to dismiss for noncompliance with the order.
The trial court dismissed all claims with prejudice and a final take-nothing judgment followed; on appeal Simulis argued remand allowed broader amendment; the appellate court reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of remand and ability to amend on remand	Simulis: general remand allowed broad amendments	GE: remand limited to quantum meruit	Remand allowed amendments except for claims already decided on summary judgment.
Whether the trial court abused by ordering replead only quantum meruit	Simulis: mandate did not bar new claims	GE: mandate restricted to quantum meruit	Trial court abused by limiting replead to quantum meruit; remand proceedings must permit new and existing claims consistent with opinion.

Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. 1986) (mandate scope informs remand proceedings; full reopening upon general remand)
Brewer & Pritchard, P.C. v. Johnson, 167 S.W.3d 460 (Tex. App.—Hou. [14th Dist.] 2005) (remand scope and amendment rights when appellate mandate is not special)
Reynolds v. Murphy, 266 S.W.3d 141 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2008) (remand and amendment rights; limits of special exceptions)
Creative Thinking Sources, Inc. v. Creative Thinking, Inc., 74 S.W.3d 504 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002) (appellate mandate did not bar new claims not substantially identical to those appealed)
Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, 221 S.W.3d 632 (Tex. 2007) (special exceptions not a vehicle for res judicata/law of the case; use other tools for such assertions)
Perry v. Cohen, 272 S.W.3d 585 (Tex. 2008) (reaffirming proper appellate review and remand mechanics)